The genesis of the Sporster was a Sports model. It was NOT a touring model.

It was H-D's answer to the lithe and lively handling Britt and European bikes of the day.

As a mtter of fact, British bike sales went down in the US when it was introduced. While the base model 883 seems lumbering and underpowered today, back in the day the Sportster held up well against the Brit twins around.

I don't think RE is going to steal any of their market share. People who buy Harleys want a Harley, not just a motorcycle. Say what you will about the bikes, they've got an amazing marketing department.

Marketing aside, I have no problem with the engine type or the basic idea of the model, and with it's fairly reasonable price, if it had a decent seating position, higher ground clearance and decent supension, I would be interested. In fact I would even contemplate an old one. The motors are pretty durable, and, as both Harley and teh Brit bike builders new, riding satisfaction is not abut speed : Torque and low end performance in all gears make for a much more satifying ride| That is precisely why Brit bikes were slanted to "town" performance specs... As far as the top speed,goes, so long as it makes the legal limit and has a bit of push to pass at that speed, who cares if it goes 85 mph.....It is no fun riding that fast anyway. to me, for touring, an 883 of the right (read old) frame configuration would be quite adequate. No it is not a perfect handler, and the engine is not sophisticated. . But it is solid durable and like the Enfield will go forever at modest speeds. For a solo traveller, what more do you need.? To me,it is the quintessential American Bike. the big Harleys are, well, just too big. I think Harley has done themselves a disservice by pushing their bigger bikes as "man's bikes" and trying to talk you up. ive ridden both, and really , there is nothing quite as fun as a snortin' noisey sportster for acceleration and the "feel" of speed. Nigel

A twin would be cool, but I'll stick with a single. A 500cc one lunger gives me the best riding sensation. I've owned a lot of twins, and multi's and I like them all but for some reason the single makes me grin the most

Perfectly right. The grinning factor is decisive! A thumper is without question far and away the best way to ride a bike!The second best way though is a twin . And because second best solutions are sometimes funny, too, I´d love to see RE building an renewed Interceptor. We´re still talking about an Interceptor, don´t we?Weighting not much more than 200kg and equipped with lot´s of torque it could be India´s first big bike. If the handling is just as brilliant as the Bullet´s, I´d be tempted...a little bit

Logged

2010 G5A Garage without a Bullet is a empty, barren hole.

When acellerating the tears of emotion must flow off horizontally to the ears.Walter Röhrl

Reading between the lines, given that the back story was the Carsberry Enfield, and the V twin offering of the gentleman who's name I cannot recall, I don't think that it is by any means certain that we ever where taking about "The Interceptor" I am not a mechanical engineer, but I am thinking it is probably easier to modify the lower end of the UCE to have two heads fore and aft and two con rods attached at a "Harely" like angle to the single crank shaft than it is to fundamentally redisiing it into an upright twin: The "V" way, they can still use off the shelf "uppers" and just recast a new crank housing with two angled flanges. I dont think you could fit two fat 350 or 500 cc Bullet wide finned heads side by each without having to angle them out to the sides (Guzzi like) and then you would be into a whole diffeternt style. So I am guessing, (given previous statements also about the "overbuild" of the UCE bottom end) that from the get go they were thinking of morphing the UCE into a V twin. In which case, it would come smack dab up against the Sportster.Nigel

Nigel, I agree, Thought the 72 degree Harley V-twin design has limitations none of them keep it from being a perfectly acceptable power plant for a road bike.

As to whether you could fit two RE pistons side by side, most of the bulk of the new engine is the head and not the cylinder, and the head has way more metal in it than it needs for containing compression or heat dissipation. They just want to keep the look of the old engine so it's bigger than it needs to be. I still think a 'Meteor' parallel twin is the way to go.

Well - There has been a persistent RUMOUR to that effect ..... and the UCE engine case IS offset about a half a cylinder width at the parting line ..... and 350cc "guts" are already out there to make 700 cc's (Interceptor!) - and finally - the concept isn't wasted on the boys in the Factory - OR Siddatha Lal.

Personally, I think that a parallel twin of 700cc's with about 60-65hp in the light Enfield frame couldn't be beat. I'd have one in my garage as soon as they were available! They'd kill Harley on every accord in India - it's an ENFIELD, it's less money, it's less tax - and you KNOW those engineers would design at least 60mpg's right into it ....

I am hedging my bets that RE will make it a parallel twin.

Whatever they call it I want one. Now lets see if they can get it here for less than the cost of a Triumph.

Logged

I can break it better,,,,at night, in the rain, on the trail,, 20 miles from nowhere.

REA #136

"TIMEX", the '06 Iron Barrel Military that takes me everywhere I want to go... and some places I shouldn't.

thank you...i mean what r they going to do just stay with the c5/g5 models...great bikes and classy but were're talking 3-4 years from now.

I think the international sales might help drive them bringing a larger bike to market. I would be curious on the price point. If it's close to a Bonnie the fit and finish will have to come up to compete.

My own preference would be a parallel twin : My comments that it would more likely be a V were maiinly based on the fact that both current working protoypes of larger displacement Bullet modifications (Carberry and "Musket" are Vs, so I must assume that it is easier to morph the lower end in that direction than it is to modify it to side by side,or they would have done that. As to price poiint, there is not a whole lot of wiggle room between the lower priced Bonnies and the Bullet now. Triumph is not posting current prices on their Canadian site, but i am pretty sure that last year the basic Bonnie was around $8,500 and they were promoting the "America" at one pont a a Sportster tackling $7,900 or so. (The T 100 was just over "10,000) The Bulllet at the same time was roughly $6,400 in base model here. so I don't see a lot of price room to manouvre, and I think if they do launch an "Interceptor" they are very likely going to be pushed into roughly the same price range as the Kawa W 800 and Triumph T 100: Their unique competitive point would have to be authenticity (which the Triumph doesn''t have on technical grounds since it is nothing like, in design , the original Bonnie, and the Kawa has in design but lacks somewhat in badging which seems to be an issue to many buyers.) There would .be a definite international "Retro" market for the Interceptor somewhat distinct from the diehard Bullet market in that there are scads of potentiial Bonnie or even Guzzi V7 purchasers who would never consider a 500 cc single: I am sure brand loyalty would carry it in the luxury market in India (which is growing rapidly) and that they could easily outflank Harley there . Internationally, I don't think it is Harley retro turf they would take (due to badge loyalty/aversion considerations (meaning there are lots of Brit/Euro retro afficianados who would never consider a harley anyway) . So I think domestically in India they will market against Harley (who are setting up shop there) but internationally their main competition would be Kawasaki, Triumph Guzzi , and possibly handas new retro offering in Japan CB 1100. Their pricing would likely reflect this but could, I suppose be brought down by teh economy of scale to the extent that they are able to use parts swappable with the Bullet and just use a different lower end. Nigel.

Nigel, I wonder if the two v-twins out there were built as Vs more because they could use existing cylinders and heads and not have to make those pieces. The Musket in particular was designed to use as many existing bullet parts already out there. While custom cranks and blocks are no mean feat I think they are easier. Time will tell I guess.

I think you're right in that there's not a lot of wiggle room on prices and they will necessarily be going head to head with more comparable bikes. I guess I really want to see them succeed but I'm anxious they won't. Right now you can get several other cool small bikes for less than the price of a Bullet. The current advantages are it's retro uniqueness and history. I don't know if that's enough to carry it in a market where it will compete more directly with similar bikes and the not quite perfect fit and finish will weigh against it.

Then again, maybe I'm being too egocentric. Maybe the international market really doesn't matter at all. Taxes on all non-Indian bikes in India are very high making them all luxury items. If Harley is setting up shop there then the economy must be good and I'm sure proud Indians would line up to buy a larger engined RE over an import. With those numbers maybe they don't worry too much about Europe and the States.

I´m sure that a big RE - if constructed and built thoroughly - would be a sucess in the home market. The factory has proven the skill to exploit their heritage and take it into the future. Don´t forget: the UCE is the second try to get to a next-generation-Bullet after the lean-burn-engine, although a vastly improved drive, didn´t show all of the desired qualities. Nevertheless, RE tried it again, fortunately sucessfull this time.So we shouldn´t underestimate the factory´s willingness to stay with old ideas, decorated with new concepts. Maybe this is a genuine Indian attitude, as their whole society is very conservative and traditionally orientated.What about the legal side: who owns the rights to the ancient British RE blueprints? Did the Indians not only bought the factory equipment but the building plans, too? Although the UCE is a new and modern engine, you´ll find plenty of similarities to the original pre-unit, starting with the visual nature. I wonder if it would be possible, if not even easier, to try to do the same with the British parallel twin. As it will be neither possible nor reasonable to compete with Japanese and European bike in terms of power it is probably enough to use modern alloys and add an injection system on the old engine to reach over 60 PS.The frame, however, was not very similar to the Bullet´s, as it was not open but used joists. Its shouldn´t be too complicated though, to weld together something stable enough for 60 PS.You see, my Interceptor is allready finished - in my head

Logged

2010 G5A Garage without a Bullet is a empty, barren hole.

When acellerating the tears of emotion must flow off horizontally to the ears.Walter Röhrl

The original interceptor was no slouch even by todays standards. Where it differs from the "modern Japanese" bikes and Triumphs reborn Bonnie is that it has the same basic configuration as the Bullet that is an undersquare bore/stroke high mass fly wheel. Yes "only" 52 hp, but though I haven't found a specific reference I think it safe to assume that even in stock 1968 form, it would have torque at least double that of the Bullet 350 in a 700 cc config. Bike in stock form was known at the time as the all time heavyweight of Brit twins and the highest speed production bike with massive acceleration due to its high torque (Tehy weren't into tossing around torque figures then , but you can with that design engine, if they said high, they meant high. Again power equals speed. The original interceptor (even without allow heads and oiling refienments and hydraulic lifters) had tons of speed regardless of the rated power. What it would have that no current production bike would even come close to is brute torque and light weight. (compared anywhay to a Sportster) The only reason that the bike died an early death was the poor supply line of the British maker and it's incapacity to match the volume/price/features of the then new Japanese bikes. But it was and is a formidable machine by any standard, old or new, and would far more testosterone infused than a Bonnie (past or present) Nigel .